Interesting discussion, I agree with both sides of this expensive-books-dilemma.

dunhill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cc,
>
> these are "art" books, not works of art.
> Works of art are the original prints by the
> photographer that may cost you at least 5.000 €.


Actually they're more in the low $1,000-$2,000 depending on the size of the print. Pretty decent I think.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... huh? the argument holds water if *any* number
> of people who would've bought one
> forego it because they got it for free. it's
> pretty obvious that the more of those there are
> the worse off the artist is, but saying it
> "doesn't work" unless it's "everyone" makes no
> sense.
all right, so not everyone, but the lost income still only applies to those who would have purchased whatever it is if it hadn't been available otherwise. Works shared for free over the internet reach a far higher number of people than otherwise, fairly few of whom would have bought whatever it is in almost any case. Your argument is the one that record companies trot out to pity themselves and deceive legislators. Most artists who aren't at the stones' level still have shite contracts, they're not making money. It's lost market share, not all lost revenue, as the fat cats would put it. And the total market of which they want their share keeps growing, with all the outlets for art, music, etc. This is not entirely a good thing, let me add... Everyone listening to mp3s and watching YouTube videos sounds like hell to me... but that shouldn't mean overcharging for uncompressed music files, or decent reproductions of moderately interesting photographs.

> but i don't know if i feel reproducibility means
> the artists are somehow obligated to make sure
> we all get to own as many of their photos as we'd
> like ...
again, that's not my position, though I personally don't feel a need to support no-longer struggling artists like the stones. But it is depressing to me to see rock music fetishized as high art.

Agree pondering is worthwhile. I was thinking of the prevalent ethics of 1969 that music was a unifying bond, that most of the few photographers who shot with access seemed to feel quite lucky. THey wanted the experience and had hopes that their pictures would be widely seen at the time so they could build a reputation. Or, at the least, be considered "cool."

In the late sixties, to be paid, let's say, one hundred dollars an image and have your work seen in a magazine made quite a few photogs happy.

Tarle was in a separate category. He was known as one of Europe's finest photographers of political figures, etc. etc.

Agree with Dunhill that "art books" must be considered separate from "works of art."

>> it is depressing to me to see rock music fetishized as high art <<

but ... cc honey, we are talking about a limited-edition book of photographs, not about music.
if we're going to discuss whether or not Ethan Russell's photographs qualify as fine art ...
i'll make popcorn, how's that.

(if we *were* talking about music: it's not the record companies i'm concerned about, believe me.
i am all in favour of forms of distributing music that bypass record companies without depriving the artists,
but so far that's not what i see emerging - i see a lot of people getting mighty used to not paying anyone for recorded music.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-26 20:15 by with sssoul.

yeah, I suppose it's the limited number of people already interested in this kind of book (limited "market") that in turn makes it a "collectors' item." ... woe to the esoteric, I guess, when most people are happy knowing about the stones through a few mp3s they can get for free. sigh...

Go for broke micwer! Ultimately the print may become a part of your identity.
By that I mean, I have certain art that makes me feel great every time I glimpse it; it's part of me.

I did have an early photo of the Stones in my "den" for quite some time and am quite angry at myself that I gave it away.

I realize that Altamont is a big part of why some of my friends are ordering this book, that it's history etc. etc. Which is fine with me. I do understand that POV.

Altamont was such a horrifying experience that I have never been able to fully look at any photo of the "worst moments."

If you look at the bare facts (650 units for an edition of 2600 copies) and think about how the photo-book business works in general you quickly realize this one is a giant rip-off : there is just no way a "limited" edition of 2600 copies of a title will be worth one day the asked retail price.

In the "art-book" world 650$ is a common price... for a book that comes with an original silver print signed by the artist. I shall add this special editions are numbered to an amount of (don't fall off your chair) 25 to 50 copies.

The bottoùm line behind this is :
- buy the luxury edition at 950 sth $. This one will be valuable.
- re the regular 650$ edition you're being asked NOW the price this book MIGHT reach in 30 years if the Stones are not forgotten by this time. In other words a giant rip-off. Unless it is offered at 25% of the limited edition that is roughly 120 bucks.

"He's a sucky photographer. He was just in the right place at the right time"

Agree. He certainly ain't in the "Jim Marshall" league. May he choke on his newly-acquired wealth.

Plus I don't like the fact that in his book the captions and quotes are printed ON the pictures. Very amateurish design...

880£ for a copy of "Exile"? Well if there is ONE guy on this planet who's willing to pay anything to have it then... But if 10 copies of this book were offered for sale on Ebay at the same time I think the books would change hands for a much lesser amount. That's called hoarding.

F@#k me I thought the limited edition consisted of 75 copies. Blimey it's 750...

Wait for a bootleg reissue printed in China for 15 bucks in 1 or 2 years...

Looks like a great book.
Never seen that photo of Jerry Hall and Charlie with son before

This is definitely a rip-off since there is no mention of the place where this monstruosity has been (or will be?) printed : if it's Italy fine, the Rhino guys are looking for the best but if it's Hong Kong I can say they wanna make a fast buck...

Sounds like you want it bad, dcba

Yes, very bitter arguying.
Anyway, all the books will be sold, so it is not a bit matter.

Like the Stones' tickets for their tours now, you can keep this book. I am sure that there are 4-5 photos I have not seen, and I am certain that the text will be a well-written re-hash of most of what we have read for years. I actually do have the money that I could buy this thing, but I can't support this instant collectible thing.

ENOUGH!

Ah, that's a nice gesture twowards the 'mam - respecting her lecture and orders